This simulated LSAT question has been provided by Blueprint LSAT Prep. Because LSAC rules prohibit the use of actual LSAT questions on the internet, this question has been written by Blueprint founder Trent Teti and tests a type of argument that frequently appears on the LSAT. This week’s installment: The fallacy of exclusivity.
The question
Some farmers have earned a very comfortable living by raising pigs, while relying on chickens has also been proven to be a way to turn an agrarian profit. Herbert, who owns a small livestock ranch in the Ohio river valley, owns neither pigs nor chickens. His farm is therefore doomed to be a profitless venture, at least with regard to livestock.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because it:
(A) fails to define the word “livestock” adequately
(B) takes for granted that a farmer can make money by raising pigs
(C) relies on questionable information regarding the Ohio river valley
(D) treats some means for profit for as through they are the only means
(E) inappropriately relies on the opinions of experts
What to do
Read the prompt, first. At Blueprint, we label this type of question a “flaw” question because you’re searching for the flaw in the argument. Reading the prompt first and classifying it lets you know what you’re looking for in the stimulus. In this instance, we know we’re dealing with a flawed argument, so you should actively search for the conclusion and premises in the argument, as well as keeping an eye out for the flaw being committed.
Conclusion and premises
In this case, the conclusion is that Herbert’s farm will not turn a profit. The premises, or support, for the argument is that some farmers make a profit from raising pigs, while others make a profit from raising chickens and that Herbert’s farm does neither of these. Poor Herbert. Not only does he live in Ohio, he’s been relegated to a life of poverty. Or has he?
Evaluating the argument
While it’s true that Herbert doesn’t own pigs or chickens, that doesn’t necessarily doom him to penury. Herbert could raise goats or perhaps the exotic chinchilla, and make money by doing so. We’ve also heard that worm farming has been all the rage lately…
The fallacy of exclusivity
This flaw is known as the fallacy of exclusivity and it crops up fairly often on the LSAT. Whenever an argument on the LSAT presents a limited number of options, you must ascertain that the options are exhaustive (no other options are available), and exclusive (multiple options can’t be chosen together). In the case of our boy Herbert, the argument failed to meet the criteria of being exhaustive. It posited that only pigs and chickens can make a livestock farmer money, when in fact there are a bewildering variety of animals that could be raised to turn a profit.
One might also see this a confusion between necessary and sufficient conditions, since even if pig and chicken farming might be sufficient to turn a profit, they are not necessarily the only means of doing so.
The answer choices
(D) is the correct answer because it points out that there are ways for Herbert to make money on his farm.. (A) is incorrect because, while livestock isn’t defined, it’s not a flaw in the argument. (B) is incorrect because the argument provides us with some support for the claim that some farmers make money raising pigs. (C) is incorrect because the argument doesn’t rely on questionable information about the Ohio river valley. (E) is incorrect because the farmers cited in the argument are appropriate sources of information.
Simulated LSAT question by Blueprint founder Trent Teti. Blueprint offers live LSAT classes and it’s newest online prep course Blueprint: The Movie 2.0.
Leave a comment
